Just curious about background

[ghjim]

I am very excited about girls joining BSA.  Eagle scout 1969, former OA lodge chief (1971).  Philmont Staff Association lifetime member.  Currently ineligible for BSA membership due to irreligious views.  

[MikeS72]

Very brief time as a Cub in 1961 (we were a military family, and after a PCS found ourselves in a small town with no Pack).  Got back in as an 11 year old Scout in 1964.  Being military meant changing troops several times along the trail to Eagle.  Elected to OA in 1969, Brotherhood in 1970 & Vigil Honor in 1972.  Chapter Chief and Chapter Advisor, along with many years of ceremonial teams.

Served on camp staff for 6 years in 2 councils.  Attended Woodbadge in 1972, at the ripe old age of 18 (first year the age requirement dropped from 21 to 18), BEAVERS ARE BEST!!  Woodbadge staff in 1974.

As an adult I have served as an ASM, SM, Chapter Advisor, Explorer Post Advisor, ACM, Webelos Den Leader.  Currently serving as a Lion Guide, ASM, UC, and getting ready to move into Cub Roundtable Commissioner.

At our first Commissioner meeting after the decision to admit girls was announced, one of the ladies in the room commented that the people most likely to object to that decision would be the 'old timers'.  My response as one of those 'old timers' was that we have had girls in the older programs for many decades, and that it is about time we joined the rest of the world in opening all of our programs to girls.  I see that as no different to my telling a Cub leader who felt the new AOL requirements were not fair to the boys who had been in Cubs since Tiger, that the only thing that would not be fair is to tell any boy who wanted to be a Scout that he could not join.  I can now rephrase to say any child who wants to be a Scout. 

[desertrat77]

Despite National's somewhat poor management of the change (especially the PR aspect), I'm in favor it.

Two reasons.  One, when I was a scout and the first coed effort started in the mid 70s, I listened to the scuttlebutt around the campfire at several camp outs.  I shrugged my shoulders and thought if the BSA went coed, I'd be fine with it.

Two, I see what the BSA has meant to my Venturing age daughter.  Personal growth and strong, positive friendships.  Outdoor adventure.  I wish she had the opportunity previous to age 14 to experience what the BSA has to offer, but I'm counting my blessings nonetheless.

Background:  Cub scout, 71 - 74, Bobcat to Arrow of Light.  Boy Scout, 74 - 81, Tenderfoot to Eagle.   APL - JASM.

OA:  Ordeal 76.  Brotherhood 78.  Vice lodge chief.  Attended 79 NOAC.

Adult years:  ASM, SM, UC, district committee member, crew committee, etc.

High adventure:  four 50 milers.

Training:  everything required to do whatever job I'm assigned to.  I have not attended WB, nor do I have any desire to do so.

 

[Sentinel947]

I'm in favor of it, and I'll leave the long answer for another thread so it doesn't trigger an argument. 

That being said my background. Thanks for the great format to copy @desertrat77!

Cub Scout 2002-2005, Wolf to Arrow of Light. Boy Scout 2005-2011. Scout- Eagle. SPL. 

OA: Ordeal 2007, Brotherhood 2009. 

Adult years. ASM 2012- current, Council Eagle Scout Association Board member, Council Summer Camp Staff (2015) 

High Adventure: Northern Tier, Sea Base, Philmont. 

Training: NYLT Youth Participant (2009), Wood Badge (2015), NYLT Adviser Staff (2018). As desertrat77 but it, all other training as required for roles. 

[bearess]

So, as mentioned, my father’s cousins were all Scouts Extrordinaire.  Five children in the family (six including my dad, who floated between his aunt/uncle and maternal grandparents— they only lived three houses apart).  All four boys were Eagles.  Daughter was a first class Girl Scout.  Mother was a Den Mother for all boys (including my father).  Father was a Scoutmaster.  They were featured in a Sunday magazine feature in the main newspaper of their state as the “Scoutingest Family in xxxxxx  in the mid 1960s (think Indianapolis Star or Des Moines Register).  Most of their children (my generation) were also active Scouts, with several of them earning Eagle.

Sooooo.....all that said, we went out to dinner with one of my dad’s cousins tonight.  We were chatting about Scouts, and my son’s Troop currently having girls.  Other than some speculation about what that looks like on paper, his reaction was entirely neutral/positive.  He pointed out that all of the skills he gained in Scouting were ones he went on to use with female colleagues/friends/community members. I suspect his brothers all feel the same.

[Gwaihir]

10 hours ago, bearess said:

So, as mentioned, my father’s cousins were all Scouts Extrordinaire.  Five children in the family (six including my dad, who floated between his aunt/uncle and maternal grandparents— they only lived three houses apart).  All four boys were Eagles.  Daughter was a first class Girl Scout.  Mother was a Den Mother for all boys (including my father).  Father was a Scoutmaster.  They were featured in a Sunday magazine feature in the main newspaper of their state as the “Scoutingest Family in xxxxxx  in the mid 1960s (think Indianapolis Star or Des Moines Register).  Most of their children (my generation) were also active Scouts, with several of them earning Eagle.

Sooooo.....all that said, we went out to dinner with one of my dad’s cousins tonight.  We were chatting about Scouts, and my son’s Troop currently having girls.  Other than some speculation about what that looks like on paper, his reaction was entirely neutral/positive.  He pointed out that all of the skills he gained in Scouting were ones he went on to use with female colleagues/friends/community members. I suspect his brothers all feel the same.

I don't understand why no one can be trustworthy or obedient.  The program is to be single-gender for troops.  It's incredibly disappointing to know the leadership involved in these troops are the ones teaching their youth to be disobedient and untrustworthy. 

[Eagle94-A1]

26 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

I don't understand why no one can be trustworthy or obedient.  The program is to be single-gender for troops.  It's incredibly disappointing to know the leadership involved in these troops are the ones teaching their youth to be disobedient and untrustworthy. 

We can ask that question to the national level folks. They have not listened to the majority of their  members on a variety of issues.

As for the boots on the ground, when the town halls were being done, commentary that the entire "separate but equal programs" was discussed. I personally mentioned to my council Key three how from those in favor of girls could not see it as feasible in my district since there is a limited pool of volunteers and resources. The only viable option they saw was full blown coed, with segregated patrols. All the other volunteers in the room agreed with that assessment, and the council key 3 tried to ignore the commentary.

Then we get the CSE's vlog with Bryan about the changes. When asked about combining dens, he mentions policy, then adds the comment "as long as everyone is working out of their own book, you will be fine." How can that be interpreted? Then we get the "linked troops" that share everything: meeting place, activities, committee, gear, and ASMs, EXCEPT the SM as they gotta have 2 different SMs. Sounds as if BSA is promoting coed troops to me.

Then we  get to the Early Adopter packs. Lots of them are having challenges getting enough leaders, and you see more and more of them having "joint den meetings." Just go to some of the facebook pages and look at the pics.

Finally, we get to all the changes in Youth Protection. Ignoring the double standard BSA created in allowing 2 females to work with all boys dens, but two men cannot work with girls, we see that patrols are no longer allowed to have meetings and activities on their own without adults. Patrols are now required to have 2 registered adults over 21 with them. SO WHY THE CHANGE? AND WHY  DO 18-20 YEAR OLDS NO LONGER COUNT TOWARDS 2 DEEP LEADERSHIP? (caps for emphasis) The only reason I can see is that BSA IS moving towards a fully coed program, and that "linked troops" are the way to get there.

 

So I do not see the volunteers as not following the  Scout Law. rather I see national not following the Scout Law, and manipulating  the situation to get what they want.

[Gwaihir]

How does anyone know they have a limited pool of volunteers before a program has even been rolled out?  You have families chomping at the bit to get into scouting, to get their girls into scouting, but not a single one of those parents is up for being a part of it as well?  I highly doubt the question has even been broached to those parents.   From where I stand, it's laziness and dishonesty (from volunteers and from national) .

[an_old_DC]

35 minutes ago, Eagle94-A1 said:

 

So I do not see the volunteers as not following the  Scout Law. rather I see national not following the Scout Law, and manipulating  the situation to get what they want.

@Eagle94-A1 Yes, I fully agree with you for most of your post. Anybody who has been in Scouting for very long can see what will happen. The volunteers on the National steering committee know it too, as does the CSE. They are playing the long game while boots on the ground are trying to figure out the day to day operations.

that said, the volunteers in @bearesssons’ Troop clearly disregard National membership policies as well as YPT. She has posted several times that her sons Troop is co-ed. The fact is: Girls cannot be members of a Boy Scout Troop.

if they will ignore these policies, it makes you wonder whatever else they ignore.

[T2Eagle]

22 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

How does anyone know they have a limited pool of volunteers before a program has even been rolled out?  You have families chomping at the bit to get into scouting, to get their girls into scouting, but not a single one of those parents is up for being a part of it as well?  I highly doubt the question has even been broached to those parents.   From where I stand, it's laziness and dishonesty (from volunteers and from national) .

I agree, there are girl's soccer teams, softball teams, track teams, basketball teams, volley ball teams, etc.  There's even this thing out there called Girl Scouts.  All of which find enough parents of those girls to be volunteers to maintain their programs.  So what evidence is there that there won't be enough volunteers to have single gender dens or troops?  

 

[Eagle94-A1]

19 minutes ago, Gwaihir said:

How does anyone know they have a limited pool of volunteers before a program has even been rolled out?  You have families chomping at the bit to get into scouting, to get their girls into scouting, but not a single one of those parents is up for being a part of it as well?  I highly doubt the question has even been broached to those parents.   From where I stand, it's laziness and dishonesty (from volunteers and from national) .

Good question. Apparently EA Packs have had this issue, and they have "joint meetings" in order to have a program. And packs have larger pools  of potential volunteers as parents are told at the round ups they need leaders, at least in my neck of the woods. So while it was theoretical when discussed, it is a real problem now.

As to how did we know this would be a problem prior to implementation? When discussed prior to the Town Hall meetings at the district, It was stated that the initial girl troops would be started by existing volunteers as new volunteers would not have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to get new troops up and running properly. Heck my sons' troop has been in existence 6 years now, and we are still not a properly run troop. This is with 3 Eagle Scouts, and a district training chair among the Scouters, who you think we would have the KSAs to do it right!.

So focusing on getting girls troops up and running would be on already overcommitted volunteers. having a completely separate troop would mean 2 set of meetings each week, 2 camp outs per month, 2 summer camp weeks, etc. No one at the district level, nor at the Town Hall meeting thought it would work when this fact was brought up.

@an_old_DC

If the focus is on the one rogue unit, I agree. with you. Or they could do what one troop did: create an all girls Venturing crew so that come February 1, 2019, they have an existing girls troop ready to go.

[Eagle1993]

It actually goes both ways.  In my case I have a small girl Tiger den (they were Lions in spring) with a former ASM, OA, Eagle Scout as the Den Leader.   At the same time I have very poor leadership of my boy Tiger den (13 boys).  That den is on the verge of collapse as no parent wants to be a leader.  My one option to save the boy den is to create common meetings, have the Eagle dad run the show and have two ADLs (one female) help provide YPT coverage and assistance.  Other option is let the boy den collapse (parents have told me they simply don’t have the time or desire to be DL and would pull their sons out if required).  Adding girls pulled in a great leader that prior to this year we would have seen the den fall apparently under inferior leadership.  

We haven’t decided to go this direction yet.  If we do I expect we would provide a great experience for 13+ boys.  If we don’t we will give a mediocre experience to 5 boys.  The girls will have a great experience either way.

 

[Eagle94-A1]

@Eagle1993,

Yes it does. You also showed another example of someone with the KSA's of the Scouting program stepping up to work with girls. GSUSA is a completely different program, and those experiences  do not always correspond to BSA's program.

[an_old_DC]

@Eagle1993why aren’t the CM and ACM or CM and CC being the “acting DLs” to keep the boy Tiger den afloat?

[Oldscout448]

1 hour ago, an_old_DC said:

 

that said, the volunteers in @bearesssons’ Troop clearly disregard National membership policies as well as YPT. She has posted several times that her sons Troop is co-ed. The fact is: Girls cannot be members of a Boy Scout Troop.

 

Unless the girls announce that they think they are boys.